Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Crowdforging PvP Feuds, Company hoping, and respawn issues.

vyal
As I mentioned, this idea is to replace the PvP death penalty entirely.

This means, when you die, you are simply teleported out of the hex, and cannot return to it.

And yes, this means whoever has the largest zerg wins, as it has been for every persistent multiplayer online game with open-world PvP, ever. The only way to stop "whoever has the largest zerg" from winning is contrived closed set instances of X vs. X , which, yeah, been there, done that, not a fan.
Just Dak
Alright, given it some thought and one thing I think I can absolutely agree with is on death spawning 2-3 hexes away. I am also in agreement that numbers should be expected to matter in a fight. I really don't understand what anti zergers want in a game but to me it sounds like a battleground.

I am not sold yet on defenders (of holdings at least) spawning at the closest shrine. I am however open to change my mind on the subject. I am just newly back and I could be missing a really compelling argument for it.
Give me a reasonable despot any day. Someone that constantly reminds everyone that they are virtuous and honorable can not be trusted to be either. If you are good we will know by your deeds, if you are reasonable we will know by our deals.
Tabomo
vyal
As I mentioned, this idea is to replace the PvP death penalty entirely.

This means, when you die, you are simply teleported out of the hex, and cannot return to it.

And yes, this means whoever has the largest zerg wins, as it has been for every persistent multiplayer online game with open-world PvP, ever. The only way to stop "whoever has the largest zerg" from winning is contrived closed set instances of X vs. X , which, yeah, been there, done that, not a fan.

So does that mean if a bandit kills you, you don't drop a husk for him to loot? Cause I think that very strongly goes against one of the core consequences for PVP death
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Tabomo
vyal
As I mentioned, this idea is to replace the PvP death penalty entirely.

This means, when you die, you are simply teleported out of the hex, and cannot return to it.

And yes, this means whoever has the largest zerg wins, as it has been for every persistent multiplayer online game with open-world PvP, ever. The only way to stop "whoever has the largest zerg" from winning is contrived closed set instances of X vs. X , which, yeah, been there, done that, not a fan.

So does that mean if a bandit kills you, you don't drop a husk for him to loot? Cause I think that very strongly goes against one of the core consequences for PVP death

No, what it would mean is that you drop a husk and it is unlikely anything will be there by the time you return. Not that returning to your husk was ever a good idea, especially if you were solo or defeated by a superior force.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Baron Malthius
CharlieG
Alright, given it some thought and one thing I think I can absolutely agree with is on death spawning 2-3 hexes away. I am also in agreement that numbers should be expected to matter in a fight. I really don't understand what anti zergers want in a game but to me it sounds like a battleground.

I am not sold yet on defenders (of holdings at least) spawning at the closest shrine. I am however open to change my mind on the subject. I am just newly back and I could be missing a really compelling argument for it.

First off, +1 on the idea of deaths spawning 2-3 hexes away.

Now as for defenders respawning in or closer to their own hex, the thing for me is it offers a chance for the defenders to regroup quicker than the attackers, giving a chance for the momentum to shift in the defender's favor temporarily. Since there aren't any fortifications of any sort around holdings and outposts, the chances of the defenders being able to turtle are reduced. If the defenders move out of that hex then they too have to respawn a few hexes away.

I think an alternative would be that would be defenders only respawn 1 hex away and attackers respawn 2-3 hexes. It still keeps the same idea of defenders being able to reorganize faster but also makes it so the defenders can't do a sort of reverse zerg rush while the attackers are waiting for their guys to rejoin the battle. It makes deaths on both sides carry more weight while still giving the edge to the defenders.

As for the company hopping thing, I like the idea of reducing the % returned if the company had more members than it started, but to me that would be enough to balance it out and would remove the need to have a 24 hour restriction. To me the 24 hour thing would have too many unintended consequences in other parts of the game.
Just Dak
I think the thing I am worried about is giving too much of an advantage to defenders. If Attacker Force attacks Defender Force it seems like with equal or greater numbers they will always lose. I am imagining defenders returning well before anyone can cap a holding while one dead attacker is especially brutal.

Is this not the case? Is this the intentional effect?
Give me a reasonable despot any day. Someone that constantly reminds everyone that they are virtuous and honorable can not be trusted to be either. If you are good we will know by your deeds, if you are reasonable we will know by our deals.
asuranshadow
Charlie, what you aren't taking into account is that the defenders have to get to the location to defend. The attacker knows where they are attacking, the defender doesn't. In the tower capture days, this meant that it was likely the attacker could capture at least one tower before the defenders could muster on site with enough numbers to turn the tide.

It remains to be seen how this will play out with outpost and holding attacks, but having seen thornguards in action, I am skeptical that the outpost guards are going to be enough of a roadblock to give the defenders that much extra time to get to location.
vyal
If it's a design goal that the PvP death be meaningful, tactical and strategic, then respawning far away (incurring a temporal penalty indirectly via travel time) or explicitly incurring a temporal penalty by preventing return to the hex for an extended period of time, is a valid feature towards that design goal.

Allowing defeated players to return to the battle, means the PvP death is neither meaningful, tactical, nor strategic.

In a game with resurrection/respawn, the available options are extremely limited to make PvP death meaningful. IMO, what's in place now is not meaningful, tactical, nor strategic. It's punitive, sure, but that's it, for the moment.
Just Dak
asuranshadow
Charlie, what you aren't taking into account is that the defenders have to get to the location to defend. The attacker knows where they are attacking, the defender doesn't. In the tower capture days, this meant that it was likely the attacker could capture at least one tower before the defenders could muster on site with enough numbers to turn the tide.

It remains to be seen how this will play out with outpost and holding attacks, but having seen thornguards in action, I am skeptical that the outpost guards are going to be enough of a roadblock to give the defenders that much extra time to get to location.

Oh OK, I didn't take into account the initial wave. I see that point, but I still don't see how doubling the amount of hexes an attacker spawns at won't pretty much make it a permanent win condition for defenders unless they are just grossly outnumbered. I think that is the point I am still missing.

If there were a scenario where attackers always spawned one hex more away then a defender I might could see it. Also if you could destroy a shrine temporarily I could see where it would open up more tactics for both defenders and attackers. The defenders start with a one hex advantage, but either side could push the fight in their favor by removing a spawn point from the enemy.

*Edit* - Explodee Shrines are problematic if you can destroy them before the first engagement. That is either a full stop to the idea or I don't know how to counteract that.
Give me a reasonable despot any day. Someone that constantly reminds everyone that they are virtuous and honorable can not be trusted to be either. If you are good we will know by your deeds, if you are reasonable we will know by our deals.
Edam
If spawning further away is impossible just put a slight delay on respawn. Even 30 seconds to a minute will make some difference.

Same with company hopping. Making /vcleave take effect at end of the hour and have applying to a new company available one hour after that will eliminate the "in combat" company hopping people are complaining about.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post